Urbanites not immune from
treaty-making

Treaty-making in the Nass Valley tucked away in northwestern BC, the home of the Nisga’a, seems so remote from the major population centres of the province as to cause many city-dwellers and suburbanites never to give the matter a serious thought. Although they may have some vague understanding that this will be the first of 50 or more treaties, it will only be when the process reaches their back yards, so to speak, that their interest will be heightened and concerns expressed. This is unfortunate because the principles being put in place now in the Nisga’a treaty are those which will be demanded as a starting point in future treaties.

One of the reasons for this suburban somnolence is the assurance given by government negotiators that “private property is not on the negotiating table.” We cast our eyes over our 60-foot lot and home upon it, or our condominium, either of which may have taken half a life time to pay for, and are content to know that our home is still our castle and likely to be undisturbed by the treaty-making process. Unfortunately, it is not quite that simple.

In the first place, although we are assured private property holdings will not be disturbed, the native negotiators have made it plain that they expect to be compensated in dollars by the government for private property values. Such a proposition borders on fantasy when the calculation of private property in Greater Vancouver, for example, is considered. There is not enough money in the bank, much less in the federal and provincial treasuries, to meet such a demand. Nonetheless, the four separate bands laying claim to the Lower Mainland will press the point in negotiations and the likely outcome will be (if the current treaty-making policy is followed) that urban settlements will be top-heavy on cash payments and lighter on the transfer of Crown land simply because such land is in short supply in many urban areas. So the first impact of urban-centred treaty-making will be even larger cash payments than in the Nisga’a deal. That means substantially higher taxes for all.

Second, urban treaty-making will likely gobble up whatever Crown land there is within the area. Parks will not be immune. Stanley Park is part of one or more land claims, as are other public parks in Greater Vancouver. How this will play out remains to be seen. This much we do know: the BC government has set aside 1,200 acres of crown land purchased 30 years ago for the Roberts Bank superport in case it is needed to settle a land claim with the Tsawwassen Band. On the basis of the Nisga’a deal, the band would have the final say on land-use regulation and could overrule the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) legislation. If this were done, one estimate is that the value of such land would skyrocket to $100,000 an acre, whereas non-native neighbours would have their land, currently valued at $5,000 an acre, remain in the ALR. So much for equality.

It is this inequitable regulation of land use which has the greatest potential for conflict, division, and discord between lands covered by urban treaties and neighbouring lands. The ongoing dispute between the Municipality of Delta and the Tsawwassen Band over the development of reserve lands in a way which is incompatible with Delta’s own requirements is a case in point. This is minor compared with what the situation would be if urban treaties give “First Nations” the final say on land use within their larger treaty lands.

Government treaty-makers must insist on the application of the ALR over treaty lands and the provincial government’s ultimate say on land-use decisions throughout the province, and not give that power away under treaties.

In my view, treaty-making of any kind in urban settings makes no sense at all. Treaty-making can be satisfactorily achieved only if it takes place prior to the influx of settlers. That is why all treaty-making on the prairies began about 1880 and was completed by 1925. All treaties entered into since that time cover sparsely populated areas of the Northwest Territories, Northern Quebec, and Yukon.

Moreover, many individual native people living on reserves adjacent to urban centres in British Columbia are substantially integrated into the larger community around them. Why turn back the clock?